The Pyrenees
23-04-2004, 18:35
What's wrong with sheep-shaggers?
A Short Musing by The Pyrenees
How can I, as a liberal athiest, forbid bestiality?
As a liberal, I feel that other people's sexual relations are of no concern of me. I feel there are very few rules that society should put on it citizens concerning sexuality. Any rules on sexuality must have a purpose other than preventing other people from being offended. These rules should be, in my opinion, based on two principles- consent and genetic health. All sexual relations should be allowed, provided they are of mutual consent and any progeny that may be produced from such a sexual encounter will be healthy (in that incest can create genetic abnormalities, and that for the sake of any progeny incest should be illegal).
When it comes to a consent, this works on two levels- age and relationship. All sexual relations must have consent given. Consent can not be given by those under 16. Consent (in a fully aware state) can not be given by those who have a unequal relationship with the other sexual partner- i.e. that of patient and doctor or student and teacher.
These rules are accepted by our society, and provide a high level of sexual freedom for citizens. Sexual relations can happen between any adult with any other adult or number of adults, provided consent is given and they are not related.
However, bestiality raises different moral questions. Currently, as consent can not be given my animals, bestiality is illegal. However, animals are not humans. We do not afford the same rights to animals as we do to humans. Does anyone ask for the animals consent when they tuck into their steak, their sausages or their bacon roll? No. Why do we allow human to eat animals, but not to engage in sexual relations?
Traditionally British Law was based on Roman Law and Christian morals. It clearly says in Leviticus 18:23 “No man or woman is to have sexual relations with an animal; that perversion makes you ritually unclean”. However, Christian law is no longer the basis for sexual law in our country. We have legalised homosexuality, also forbidden in Leviticus. I have a personal revulsion to bestiality, but personal revulsion is no basis for law. As a homosexual, I am fully aware that probably the majority of my country finds the acts I commit revolting. However, it is consensual, and so legal.
We do not require consent to kill animals. Therefore it follows that we should not require consent to have sexual relations. The only reason it hasn't been legalised is because no one has asked.
I can think of only one reason why bestiality should be legal- animal cruelty. But providing the adult committing the act is not cruel and adheres to current laws on animal cruelty, surely that would be enough?
And how about dead animals? We do not treat animals corpses in the same way as human corpses. We eat them. Therefore having sex with an animal corpse is not cruel- no crueler than eating them.
Despite the revulsion of the vast majority of myself and the vast majority of the British public, I can't logically, as a liberal, support its continuing illegality.
A Short Musing by The Pyrenees
How can I, as a liberal athiest, forbid bestiality?
As a liberal, I feel that other people's sexual relations are of no concern of me. I feel there are very few rules that society should put on it citizens concerning sexuality. Any rules on sexuality must have a purpose other than preventing other people from being offended. These rules should be, in my opinion, based on two principles- consent and genetic health. All sexual relations should be allowed, provided they are of mutual consent and any progeny that may be produced from such a sexual encounter will be healthy (in that incest can create genetic abnormalities, and that for the sake of any progeny incest should be illegal).
When it comes to a consent, this works on two levels- age and relationship. All sexual relations must have consent given. Consent can not be given by those under 16. Consent (in a fully aware state) can not be given by those who have a unequal relationship with the other sexual partner- i.e. that of patient and doctor or student and teacher.
These rules are accepted by our society, and provide a high level of sexual freedom for citizens. Sexual relations can happen between any adult with any other adult or number of adults, provided consent is given and they are not related.
However, bestiality raises different moral questions. Currently, as consent can not be given my animals, bestiality is illegal. However, animals are not humans. We do not afford the same rights to animals as we do to humans. Does anyone ask for the animals consent when they tuck into their steak, their sausages or their bacon roll? No. Why do we allow human to eat animals, but not to engage in sexual relations?
Traditionally British Law was based on Roman Law and Christian morals. It clearly says in Leviticus 18:23 “No man or woman is to have sexual relations with an animal; that perversion makes you ritually unclean”. However, Christian law is no longer the basis for sexual law in our country. We have legalised homosexuality, also forbidden in Leviticus. I have a personal revulsion to bestiality, but personal revulsion is no basis for law. As a homosexual, I am fully aware that probably the majority of my country finds the acts I commit revolting. However, it is consensual, and so legal.
We do not require consent to kill animals. Therefore it follows that we should not require consent to have sexual relations. The only reason it hasn't been legalised is because no one has asked.
I can think of only one reason why bestiality should be legal- animal cruelty. But providing the adult committing the act is not cruel and adheres to current laws on animal cruelty, surely that would be enough?
And how about dead animals? We do not treat animals corpses in the same way as human corpses. We eat them. Therefore having sex with an animal corpse is not cruel- no crueler than eating them.
Despite the revulsion of the vast majority of myself and the vast majority of the British public, I can't logically, as a liberal, support its continuing illegality.